7 The primary planks of the Defence, as discerned from the overall tenor of the Accused’s testimony, cross-examination of the witnesses and closing submissions, were that he had provided his urine on three occasions and was willing to provide a specimen, but had experienced difficulty urinating since September 2021, which pre-dated his arrest.

8 Following a police spot check, the Accused was arrested in the early hours of 26 January 2022 by Sergeant Mohammad Fadzli Bin Jamaludin (“Sgt Fadzli”) on suspicion of having consumed controlled drugs ⁴ . During the spot check, the Accused was unable to furnish his personal particulars, attempted to flee, ⁵ displayed “slurred” speech and “bloodshot eyes” and gave incoherent answers. ⁶

9 Following his arrest, the Accused intentionally knocked his head while in the police car ⁷ and again at the police division lock-up, ⁸ . He was consequently conveyed to Changi General Hospital (“CGH”) where he was examined by Dr Arshad Iqbal (“Dr Arshad”) for a left forehead haematoma and subsequently discharged with oral analgesia. ⁹ During this consultation, the Accused did not complain of back pain or any difficulty with urination. ¹⁰

10 Thereafter, while still at CGH, Sergeant Muhammad Iqbal Bin Junaidi (“Sgt Iqbal”) asked the Accused if he was able to provide a urine specimen. At about 4.20 a.m., after consuming three cups of water, ¹¹ the Accused indicated that he was ready to do so. ¹² He selected three sealed bottles, was escorted to the toilet and was given directions on how to provide his specimen. ¹³ The grip restraint on the Accused’s left hand had been loosened to facilitate the urine procurement process. ¹⁴

11 At about 4.40 a.m., the Accused urinated “less than 20 ml” into the master bottle for less than one second before moving it away and urinating into the toilet bowl for three to six seconds, notwithstanding Sgt Iqbal’s directions to collect his urine specimen. ¹⁵ When the Accused had stopped urinating, Sgt Iqbal reached out to take the master bottle, at which point the Accused “deliberately” overturned it and emptied its contents into the toilet bowl. ¹⁶ Exhibit P14 captures Sgt Iqbal’s in-court demonstration of the various positions in which the Accused held the master bottle. ¹⁷ The following photographs depict how the Accused was positioned when he poured his urine into the toilet bowl: ¹⁸

12 The Accused became agitated and aggressive when informed that CNB would be notified of what had transpired. ¹⁹ At about 4.50 a.m., he was warned that failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a urine specimen for testing was an offence (“the First Warning”). ²⁰ The First Warning pro forma (Exhibit P4) was subsequently signed by the Accused, acknowledging the warning that had been administered. ²¹ The document also recorded the incident that had occurred in the toilet. ²²

13 At about 6.10 a.m., the Accused was escorted back to the police division lock-up. Sometime between 6.30 a.m. and 7.47 a.m., Inspector Khoo Yong Sin (“Inspector Khoo”) asked the Accused to provide a urine specimen and he replied that he would try. ²³ He selected three sealed bottles, was escorted to the toilet and was given directions on how to provide his urine specimen. ²⁴

14 Instead of complying with Inspector Khoo’s direction to provide a urine specimen of 80 millilitres, the Accused provided less than 10 millilitres of urine. ²⁵ When Inspector Khoo informed him that the specimen was “very little and not full”, the Accused insisted that he had given a full bottle of urine and asked that it be sealed. ²⁶ Inspector Khoo did so, sealing the bottle with tape and placing it inside a polymer bag labelled with the Accused’s name and identity number before sealing it in his presence. The sealed bag was then handed to the Accused ²⁷ who was escorted to a padded cell as he remained agitated. ²⁸ The sealed polymer bag containing the urine sample was placed in the padded cell and remained within his view. ²⁹

15 At about 7.47 a.m., Inspector Khoo approached the Accused who was lying on the floor of the padded cell, called him by name and tapped his shoulder. When there was no response, Inspector Khoo placed a cup of water beside him and called out to him again, informing him that he needed to administer the second warning. When there was still no response, Inspector Khoo proceeded to read out the warning, informing the Accused that failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a urine specimen for testing was an offence (“the Second Warning”). ³⁰ The Second Warning was administered because the urine specimen provided by the Accused was insufficient for urine testing. ³¹ Inspector Khoo then left the cell and recorded what had transpired on the Second Warning pro forma (Exhibit P5). ³² The Accused neither signed Exhibit P5 nor consumed the water provided by Inspector Khoo.

16 At about 9.09 a.m., a CNB officer spoke to the Accused in the padded cell and requested that he provide a urine specimen. The Accused did not do so. ³³

17 Sometime later, Station Inspector Mohamad Jufri Mohd Salieh (“SI Jufri”) woke the Accused from his sleep and asked him if he was able to provide a urine specimen. The Accused told SI Jufri not to disturb him, stating that a CNB officer had already spoken to him. When asked why he had not provided a urine specimen, the Accused said that he had back pain and numbness in his right leg. He consumed only about one-third or one-quarter of the water provided by SI Jufri. ³⁴

18 At about 10.48 a.m., SI Jufri returned to the padded cell and shook the Accused awake. ³⁵ He then read out a warning informing the Accused that failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a urine specimen for testing was an offence (“the Third Warning”). ³⁶ The Accused did not respond when asked to sign the Third Warning pro forma (Exhibit P9) and continued resting. SI Jufri subsequently recorded his interaction with the Accused in Exhibit P9. ³⁷

19 At about 2.00 p.m., the Accused was examined by Dr Yak Si Mian (“Dr Yak”) at the police division lock-up. The Accused informed Dr Yak that he had not felt the urge to urinate since doing so earlier that day. Dr Yak performed a physical examination and found no palpable bladder, indicating that the Accused’s bladder was not full. Dr Yak therefore assessed that the Accused would be able to pass urine if given more time and adequate hydration. ³⁸ Save for the Accused’s self-report, there was no objective evidence of any numbness of the right leg. ³⁹ There was likewise no evidence of any nerve compression. ⁴⁰

20 At about 3.00 p.m., the Accused was referred to CNB for further investigation. At about 4.00 p.m., at the CNB office located within the same police division, Sergeant Muhammad Azil Hafiz Bin Raffi (“Sgt Azil”) escorted the Accused for urine procurement. On this occasion, the Accused provided a “small amount of urine” that was “about a quarter of the bottle.” ⁴¹ He was then brought to the waiting area and advised to hydrate himself. ⁴²

21 At about 4.45 p.m., Sergeant M Makesh (“Sgt Makesh”) began administering a warning to the Accused. ⁴³ In the course of doing so, the Accused insisted that he had already provided sufficient urine. Sgt Makesh informed the Accused that the specimen he had provided was insufficient for testing. ⁴⁴ As the Accused maintained his stance and became uncooperative, the warning could not be completed (Exhibit P8).

22 As the situation escalated, team leader Inspector Norman Bin Senin (“Inspector Norman”), intervened and at about 4.46 p.m., administered a warning to the Accused informing him that failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide a urine specimen for testing was an offence (“the Fourth Warning”). ⁴⁵ The Accused stated that he was not ready to provide his urine specimen as he had already done so and declined to consume the water offered to him. ⁴⁶ This exchange was recorded in Exhibit P7 and signed by the Accused.

23 The Accused was informed that he could notify the officers if he was ready to provide a urine specimen. ⁴⁷

24 Sometime after the Fourth Warning, while CNB officers were explaining the need for him to provide a urine specimen and the process involved, the Accused threw the bottle containing the urine specimen he had provided up to that point, into a rubbish bin a few feet away. ⁴⁸

25 The bottle, which was in a clear, heat-sealed bag bearing the Accused’s name and particulars, was retrieved by Sergeant Muhammad Al-Luqman (“Sgt Luqman”) and shown to him. Upon the Accused confirming that the retrieved sample belonged to him, ⁴⁹ a portion of urine siphoned from the specimen in his presence, ⁵⁰ was subjected to an instant urine test ⁵¹ which disclosed the presence of amphetamine and opiates. ⁵²

26 The remaining specimen could not be sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for testing as it was less than 80 millilitres and could not be transferred into two small bottles for sealing. ⁵³

27 Between 5.10 p.m. and 6.40 p.m., the Accused’s statement was recorded by Sergeant Muhammad Hakeem Bin Amran (“Sgt Hakeem”) (the contents of which are discussed at [54] below). He was then referred to Inspector Winnie Cheong (“Inspector Winnie”) who made a final request for the Accused’s urine specimen at about 7.26 p.m. Senior Staff Sergeant Adly Izuan Bin Roslan (“SSSgt Adly”) who assisted with interpretation, informed the Accused in Malay that he was being given a last opportunity to provide his urine specimen. ⁵⁴ The Accused informed SSSgt Adly that he had difficulty providing his urine. ⁵⁵

28 At about 7.47 p.m. Inspector Winnie recorded the Accused’s cautioned statement. He said “nothing” to the charge of failing to provide a specimen of his urine for testing (Exhibit P11). ⁵⁶

29 On 19 April 2011, the Accused was convicted of consuming a specified drug and punished under s 33A(1) of the MDA with five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. ⁵⁷

30 Dr Arshad who examined the Accused at CGH between 3.00 a.m. and 4.00 a.m. on the day of his arrest, testified that the Accused had not complained of back pain or any difficulty with urination. ⁵⁸

31 Dr Yak who examined the Accused at the police division lock-up on the same day at about 2.00 p.m., stated that the Accused was a “poor historian” with regards to his ability to pass urine as he could not provide more information or specifics when queried on what the nature of the difficulty was. ⁵⁹ He testified that there was no objective evidence of any numbness of the right leg, ⁶⁰ and no evidence of any nerve compression. ⁶¹ A physical examination found no palpable bladder, indicating that the Accused’s bladder was not full. Dr Yak thus assessed that the Accused was able to urinate and would be able to do so if given more time and hydration. ⁶²

32 In the course of the trial, evidence was led from several doctors concerning the medical examinations the Accused had undergone both prior to his arrest (in September and December 2021) and after he had been charged (from June 2022 onwards).

33 On 10 September 2021, several months prior to his arrest, the Accused presented at the Emergency Department of CGH with right scrotal pain. He was diagnosed with orchitis (inflammation of the testes) and epididymitis (inflammation of the epididymis, an organ located behind the testicle). ⁶³ Neither condition would ordinarily cause difficulty with urination. ⁶⁴ When reviewed by a doctor from the CGH Urology Department, the Accused did not complain of any lower urinary tract symptoms, ⁶⁵ a term given to complaints of urinary symptoms. ⁶⁶ A urine sample was obtained and both a urinalysis and urine culture were performed and found to be normal. ⁶⁷ The Accused’s provision of a urine sample demonstrated his ability to urinate at the time. ⁶⁸ He was discharged with antibiotics to treat the inflammation of the epididymis. ⁶⁹

34 On 17 December 2021, the Accused again presented at the Emergency Department of CGH, this time with a complaint of worsening lower back pain associated with right lower limb weakness, numbness and bowel incontinence. Medical examination revealed that muscle power in the lower limb was normal and that any reduced sensation of the lower limb was subjective. Although Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the lumbar spine showed degenerative disc disease, there was “no radiological evidence of cord or nerve compression.” ⁷⁰

35 On 15 June 2022, approximately two months after he had been charged, ⁷¹ the Accused presented at the Prisons’ Medical Centre with complaints of bilateral scrotal discomfort, dysuria (pain on urination) and urinary infrequency of nine months duration. ⁷² He was referred to the CGH Urology Department and was subsequently seen on 15 August 2022 and 21 November 2022 for his self-reported lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to voiding dysfunction ⁷³ .

36 Investigations conducted – including urinalysis, urine culture, post-void residual urine, a computer tomographic intravenous pyelogram scan and ultrasound scan of the bilateral groin and scrotum – were all normal. ⁷⁴ There was no objective evidence of the hesitancy or poor urinary flow that the Accused had complained of. A uroflowmetry test measuring flow rate and volume was within normal limits and showed no significant obstruction and no post-void residual urine, indicating that the Accused’s bladder was completely empty after urination. ⁷⁵ Notwithstanding these objective findings, the Accused was prescribed Terazosin to alleviate his subjective complaints of urinary difficulty. ⁷⁶

37 Dr Lee Song Liang Joshua (“Dr Lee”) testified that there was no evidence at any point during the Accused’s clinical visits in 2022, that he was in urinary retention or unable to pass urine. ⁷⁷

38 The following account is drawn from the Accused’s testimony at trial.

39 The Accused stated that he was stopped by Sgt Fadzli and his partner for a routine spot check. He informed the officers that he had absconded from court. No drugs were found on him. ⁷⁸ He was escorted to the police division and, according to him, hit his head against a wall in irritation after one of the escorting officers behaved violently towards him. ⁷⁹

40 The Accused testified that he was subsequently asked to provide a urine specimen and did so on three occasions:

(a) First specimen (CGH): after drinking one to two cups of water the Accused informed Sgt Iqbal that he could provide a sample. The Accused claimed that he was urinating into the bottle when it “slipped” from his hand as he “suddenly” felt “dizzy”, “lightheaded” and his “head was spinning” causing him to “blackout” and lose control of his hands. He said “alamak, it fell” and apologised to Sgt Iqbal. Nothing remained in the bottle after the spill. ⁸⁰ He accepted as accurate, Sgt Iqbal’s demonstration of how he had held the bottle as the urine spilled into the toilet bowl. ⁸¹ He signed the warning administered to him (Exhibit P4); ⁸²

(b) Second specimen (police division): this was procured by Inspector Khoo in a padded cell. The Accused “urinated a bit” into the bottle and informed Inspector Khoo that this was all he could provide as his “urine can come out just a bit”; ⁸³ and

(c) Third specimen (CNB holding area): this was procured by Sgt Azil. The Accused had been told to inform the officers if he needed to urinate or required water. He subsequently urinated as much as he could into the bottle. ⁸⁴ He accepted that he had only provided “a bit” of urine – about one-quarter of the bottle – and that it was insufficient. ⁸⁵

41 Shortly after providing the third specimen, the Accused consumed water given to him by Sgt Makesh. When asked whether he could urinate again, he replied that he would need to wait as he just done so. An argument ensued, with Sgt Makesh telling him to try and the Accused responding that he could not urinate without urge to do so. Sgt Makesh informed the Accused that he would be given a warning. ⁸⁶

42 Inspector Norman intervened and offered the Accused more water, which he declined as he had just consumed the water provided to him by Sgt Makesh. The Accused told Inspector Norman that he would provide his urine later as he had just urinated. Inspector Norman then administered a warning which the Accused signed (Exhibit P7). ⁸⁷

43 The Accused testified that he became annoyed by the warnings administered in quick succession by Sgt Makesh and Inspector Norman, and in frustration threw the bag containing the bottle of his urine specimen. ⁸⁸ He accepted that Sgt Luqman subsequently retrieved the bottle and showed it to him. ⁸⁹

44 Following the recording of his statement (Exhibit P13), the Accused was informed that a final warning would be administered. He elected to speak in Malay and told SSSgt Adly that it was not that he did not wish to provide his urine, but that he had difficulties urinating because he could not produce urine. He signed the final warning (Exhibit P10). ⁹⁰

45 A cautioned statement (Exhibit P11) was subsequently recorded. The Accused stated that he “refused to talk” to the recorder because he was annoyed with her. ⁹¹

46 The Accused’s evidence regarding his various medical consultations was as follows:

(a) CGH consultation on 10 September 2021: he did not report any difficulty urinating ⁹² because he was in pain. ⁹³ He accepted that Exhibit D3 did not record any complaint or medical finding of urinary difficulty; ⁹⁴

(b) CGH consultation on 17 December 2021: he accepted that the doctor did not find him physically unable to urinate; ⁹⁵

(c) Day of arrest on 26 January 2022: he did not complain of dizziness to either Dr Arshad or Dr Yak. ⁹⁶ He accepted that he was physically able to urinate when seen by Dr Arshad. ⁹⁷ He told Dr Yak that while he could urinate, he did not have the urge to do so and could only produce a bit of urine; ⁹⁸

(d) In-prison consultation on 15 June 2022: he informed the in-house doctor that he had difficulties urinating; ⁹⁹

(e) CGH consultation on 15 August 2022: he informed the specialist that he had difficulty urinating and was prescribed medication; ¹⁰⁰ and

(f) CGH consultation three months later in November 2022: the doctor told him that his “urine [was] very slow” and advised him to continue with his medication for another year. ¹⁰¹

47 The admissions in the Accused’s statement (Exhibit P13), as well as the absence of any contemporaneous claim of a medical impediment or inability to provide a sufficient urine sample in both Exhibit P13 and the cautioned statement (Exhibit P11), were central to my findings on material issues. I therefore begin by explaining why I determined that both statements should be accorded full weight.

48 Although the Accused accepted that both statements were given voluntarily, ¹⁰² he sought to impugn the veracity of their contents. He challenged the accuracy of Exhibit P13, alleging that Sgt Hakeem had failed to record material aspects of what he had said. ¹⁰³ The key assertions were as follows:

(a) In relation to paragraph 1: the Accused claimed that he had informed Sgt Hakeem that he was experiencing back and leg pain, but this was not reflected in the statement; ¹⁰⁴

(b) In relation to paragraph 5: the Accused asserted that he had told Sgt Hakeem that he was unaware that warnings had been administered by Inspector Khoo and SI Jufri because he had been asleep. ¹⁰⁵ Specifically, as regards the second warning at 7.47 a.m., he claimed that Sgt Hakeem told him that when an officer woke him, he had said that he did not want to give his urine specimen and gone back to sleep. The Accused said he could not remember and replied, “if you say that I do not want to urinate or I slept again, you can write, lah”. ¹⁰⁶ As regards the third warning at 10.48 a.m., he alleged that Sgt Hakeem told him that officers had asked him to urinate but he did not want to give his urine, to which he responded that he had been sleeping; ¹⁰⁷

(c) In relation to paragraph 6: the Accused claimed that he had told Sgt Hakeem that he threw the bottle of urine because he was both “foolish” and annoyed by the warnings given by Sgt Makesh and Inspector Norman; ¹⁰⁸

(d) The Accused further claimed that he had told Sgt Hakeem that he had gone to the hospital in 2021 because of urinary problems, but this was not recorded; ¹⁰⁹

(e) He asserted that he had repeatedly told Sgt Hakeen that it was not that he did not wish to provide his urine, but that he had difficulty doing so. ¹¹⁰ Relatedly, he claimed that he asked Sgt Hakeem to amend the statement to include his position that he was unable to produce urine. ¹¹¹

49 I found the Accused’s allegations impugning the accuracy of Exhibit P13 to be wholly unmeritorious for the following reasons:

(a) I accepted Sgt Hakeem’s evidence which was cogent and unshaken in cross-examination. In refuting the Accused’s allegation at [48(a)], Sgt Hakeem explained that paragraph 1 was recorded based on what the Accused had told him during the statement-taking process. He testified that the only medical condition mentioned by the Accused at the time was his slipped disc, for which he had sought treatment at CGH. ¹¹² I found that Paragraph 1 of Exhibit P13 reflected precisely that account; and

(b) The remaining allegations at [48(b)] to [48(e)] surfaced only belatedly when the Accused testified in his defence. They were not put to Sgt Hakeem when he was on the stand, notwithstanding his unequivocal evidence that all the information provided by the Accused had been faithfully recorded. ¹¹³

50 The latter omission was particularly striking and materially undermined the credibility of the Accused’s assertions. The Accused’s belated explanation that he had missed “many opportunities” to question Sgt Hakeem because he was “confused”, ¹¹⁴ was unpersuasive. It did not satisfactorily explain his failure to challenge Sgt Hakeem when he had every opportunity to do so, both at the time the statement was recorded and at trial. Indeed, the evidence showed that the Accused was plainly not someone who would meekly acquiesce to perceived infringements of his rights. Throughout the events in question, he demonstrated a readiness to challenge the officers with whom he disagreed and to articulate his frustrations (see for example, supra at [12], [21] and [24]). He was similarly alert, engaged and responsive throughout court proceedings. The Accused was also fully apprised (and thus aware) of the purpose and scope of cross-examination, including the need to challenge a witness’s evidence if he disputed it and the consequences of leaving such evidence unchallenged. ¹¹⁵ In these circumstances, his professed confusion was not only inconsistent with his demonstrated ability to understand events, follow proceedings and raise objections when it suited him, but also with his evident appreciation of the significance of cross-examination and the effect of failing to put his case to the witness.

51 I therefore rejected his allegations, which bore the hallmarks of afterthoughts advanced in an attempt to align his recorded statement with his defence at trial. I accepted that Exhibit P13 was recorded accurately and contained the account that the Accused had given at the time.

52 I reached the same conclusion in relation to the Accused’s claims concerning his cautioned statement, Exhibit P11 (supra at [45]). The assertion that he had “refused to talk” because he was annoyed with the recorder for purportedly refusing his request for medical attention, similarly, arose belatedly and was never put to Inspector Winnie. ¹¹⁶ It also bears emphasis that Inspector Winnie categorically rejected the Accused’s underlying claim that she had denied his earlier request to see a doctor. ¹¹⁷ I found her evidence to be clear and consistent.

53 In the circumstances, I did not accept the Accused’s suggestion that his silence in Exhibit P11 was attributable to anger towards the recorder. Rather, the statement simply recorded that he elected to say “nothing” when confronted with the allegation that he had failed to provide a urine sample. The absence of any reference to a medical inability or impediment at that juncture materially undermined the credibility of the defence advanced as trial, a point I return to at [67(c)] below.

54 The following essential points were disclosed in Exhibit P13:

(a) The Accused had been suffering from a slipped disc since 2010. He could “function normally” save for being unable to carry heavy things or stand for long hours as it was painful. He would go to CGH for medical check-ups related to his condition; ¹¹⁸

(b) The Accused was arrested at about 1.35 a.m. on 26 January 2022 and had informed the police officers that he could not recall his identity number; ¹¹⁹

(c) At about 4.40 a.m., while urine procurement was underway at CGH, the Accused “accidentally spilled all the urine” into the toilet bowl. It was “an accident”. The Accused “was awake” and “aware of what was going on”. He was unable to provide a further urine sample and at about 4.50 a.m., was warned that he could be charged if he failed to do so; ¹²⁰

(d) The Accused’s second warning was administered at 7.47 a.m. He was told that he could be charged if he did not provide enough urine for testing. He did not sign the warning because he did not want to do so. The Accused continued sleeping thereafter; ¹²¹

(e) The next warning was served at about 10.48 a.m. Again, the Accused did not sign the warning because he “did not want to sign it”; ¹²²

(f) During the above period, the Accused had been informed that he could request for water, however he did not do so; ¹²³

(g) At about 3.00 p.m., the Accused was brought to the CNB office where he was once again instructed to provide his urine for testing. He drank a few cups of water and “managed to provide a little bit” of urine, but was “informed that it was not enough for testing: ¹²⁴

(h) At about 4.46 p.m., a CNB officer attempted to serve the Accused another warning but was unable to engage well with him. As such, Inspector Norman administered the warning, informing the Accused that he could be charged if he failed to provide enough urine for testing; ¹²⁵

(i) At about 5.00 p.m., the Accused felt frustrated and threw the bottle containing his urine sample into the dustbin as he “did not want to provide [his] urine sample anymore”. Exhibit P13 contains a photograph of the said bottle of urine; ¹²⁶ and

(j) The Accused did not know why the said urine sample was positive for amphetamine and opiates. He did not consume any controlled drug. ¹²⁷

55 I now turn to examine, in seriatim, the elements of the offence and the primary issues in dispute (supra at [4] and [5]).

56 I began by considering whether there was proper basis for the Accused’s arrest on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug. I was satisfied that there was.

57 The Accused’s slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and incoherent answers formed the basis of Sgt Fadzli’s suspicion that he was under the influence of drugs (supra at [8]). ¹²⁸ Notably, the Accused did not challenge this account, ¹²⁹ nor suggest that these observations were fabricated or exaggerated, and offered no alternative explanation for his demeanour. I therefore accepted Sgt Fadzli’s unchallenged account. The fact that no drug-related paraphernalia was found on the Accused when he was searched also did not diminish the significance of the officer’s observations.

58 There was, in my view, no question of any lack of probable cause. Sgt Fadzli’s observations provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable suspicion that the Accused had committed an offence under s 8(b) of the MDA. The arrest and the subsequent requests for a urine specimen were therefore fully justified.

59 Section 31(1) of the MDA requires a person suspected of having committed an offence under s 8(b) of the MDA to provide a specimen of his urine for testing. Section 31(4) of the MDA prescribes the manner in which such testing is to be undertaken – the urine specimen must be divided into three parts, with a preliminary urine test conducted on one part and urine tests conducted by a HSA analyst on each of the remaining two parts. The tests are conjunctive requirements.

60 Regulation 5 of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (1999 Revised Edition) reg 6 (“the Regulations”) makes clear that such testing may only be performed on a urine specimen of 80 milliliters or more. Regulations 6 to 10 further provide that attempts to procure urine must continue until the volume of urine in the master bottle reaches at least 80 milliliters. The statutory scheme therefore makes plain that a specimen of less than 80 milliliters is insufficient for the purposes of urine testing under s 31(1) of the MDA.

61 In the present case, the evidence established that:

(a) The Accused was fully aware that he was required to provide a urine specimen of at least 80 milliliters. This requirement was expressly conveyed to him by Inspector Khoo (supra at [14]);

(b) Although the Accused did provide his urine on three occasions, the volume provided at the conclusion of the procurement process fell short of the 80 milliliters required, and whilst sufficient for the preliminary urine test, it was insufficient for HSA analysis (supra at [26]) –

(i) nothing remained of the first specimen of urine after the Accused spilled its contents into the toilet bowl (supra at [11] and [40(a)]);

(ii) the second specimen provided to Inspector Khoo was insufficient. ¹³⁰ By the Accused’s own admission, he had only “urinated a bit”; ¹³¹

(iii) the third specimen provided to Sgt Azil, comprised a “small amount of urine”– approximately one-quarter of the bottle – which the Accused himself accepted was insufficient; ¹³² and

(c) The Accused was acutely aware that the specimen he had provided was inadequate as he had been expressly informed by Sgt Makesh, ¹³³ Inspector Norman (supra at [54(h)]) and another CNB officer (supra at [54(g)]) that the volume was insufficient for testing.

62 In the premises, I was satisfied that the Accused had failed to provide a urine specimen meeting the requirements under s 31(1) read with s 31(4) of the MDA and the Regulations. The specimen provided did not reach the minimum volume of 80 millilitres required to enable the conjunctive testing process (of both a preliminary test and HSA analysis) prescribed by law.

63 The remaining issue was whether the Accused was, at the material time, medically impeded in a manner that afforded him a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a sufficient urine specimen, as he claimed (supra at [7]). Pursuant to ss 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act 1893, the burden lay on him to establish such an excuse on a balance of probabilities. On the evidence before me, that burden was not discharged. I explain.

64 The Accused’s contention that he was medically incapable of providing a sufficient urine specimen, was wholly unsupported by the objective medical evidence. A review of the medical records across all three relevant periods – prior to his arrest, the day of his arrest, and in the months thereafter – revealed no clinical finding that the Accused’s ability to urinate was in any way impaired.

65 The medical consultations prior to his arrest – whether in September or December 2021 – contained no complaint of urinary difficulty, disclosed no condition capable of affecting urination, and recorded no finding that the Accused experienced any difficulty in passing urine (supra at [33] and [34], Exhibits D1, D3 and D4). These records were entirely inconsistent with the existence of any pre-existing medical impediment; a position that the Accused ultimately accepted (supra [46(a)] and [46(b)]). His belated explanation – that he did not mention urinary difficulties in September 2021 because he was in pain ¹³⁴ – did not withstand scrutiny since he was able to articulate other complaints clearly at the same consultation. More significantly, the Accused successfully provided a urine sample in September 2021 for analysis and culture, thereby objectively demonstrating his ability to urinate. ¹³⁵ Even when degenerative lumbar changes were later identified, there was no radiological evidence of cord or nerve compression that could account for any purported impaired urinary function (Exhibit D5 and supra at [34]).

66 The position on the day of arrest was no different. The Accused did not complain of any urinary difficulties to Dr Arshad (supra at [30]) and accepted that he was in fact able to urinate at the time (supra at [46(c)]). When later examined by Dr Yak, there was no objective evidence of urinary retention, no palpable bladder and no neurological deficit suggestive of any impaired ability to urinate. Crucially, Dr Yak assessed that the Accused was able to urinate and would be able to do so with time and hydration (supra at [31]) – an assessment that squarely contradicted the Accused’s claim of impeded urinary ability.

67 The surrounding evidence further eroded the credibility of the Accused’s defence:

(a) Dr Yak described the Accused as a “poor historian” who was unable to crystallise the precise nature of his alleged urinary difficulty, nor when it began, when queried (supra at [31]). This vagueness stood in marked contrast to the clarity with which he articulated his other complaints. Significantly, Dr Yak also denied that the Accused had told him that he could only urinate “bit by bit” ¹³⁶ – an assertion that was central to the Accused’s defence at trial. This materially undermined the credibility of the claimed impediment;

(b) Equally significant was the selective and inconsistent manner in which the alleged incapacity was disclosed to the Officers. Over more than 14 hours, the Accused was repeatedly directed to provide a urine specimen and warned of the consequences of non-compliance. Yet he did not inform Sgt Iqbal, ¹³⁷ Inspector Khoo, ¹³⁸ SI Jufri, ¹³⁹ Sgt Azil, ¹⁴⁰ Sgt Makesh, ¹⁴¹ Inspector Norman ¹⁴² or Inspector Winnie ¹⁴³ of the difficulty he was purportedly experiencing at the time. If the inability had genuinely existed, it would have been the obvious and immediate explanation for his failure to provide an adequate sample. Instead, the alleged impediment surfaced only in a final exchange with SSSgt Adly (supra at [44]), and even then, in vague and non-specific terms. This belated assertion sat uneasily with the objective medical evidence and was strongly suggestive of a contrived defence rather than a contemporaneous medical reality; and

(c) The Accused’s investigation statements reinforced this conclusion. Neither Exhibit P13 nor Exhibit P11 contained any reference to a medical inability to provide urine, notwithstanding the Accused knowing the importance of stating material facts truthfully. ¹⁴⁴ Glaringly, Exhibit P13 recorded only his slipped disc and expressly stated that, apart from difficulty carrying heavy objects or standing for prolonged periods, he was able to “function normally” (supra at [54(a)]). Having rejected the Accused’s attempt to impugn the accuracy of Exhibits P11 and P13 (supra at [49] to [52]), I found the conspicuous absence of any contemporaneous reference to what was advanced at trial as the core of the Accused’s defence, to be highly probative of fabrication.

68 The medical investigations conducted after the Accused was charged, were equally telling. The objective findings – including radiological studies and uroflowmetry testing – were normal and showed no urinary retention, obstruction, hesitancy or impaired voiding (supra at [36] to [37]). The Accused’s assertion that a doctor had told him that his “urine was very slow”, ¹⁴⁵ was unsupported by these findings. I thus determined that there was no impediment to urination even in the months following his arrest.

69 Further, I found it inherently implausible that the Accused would have waited some four and a half months to alert a doctor if he had genuinely been unable to urinate between January and June 2022. He accepted that he would ordinarily have sought medical attention in such circumstances, yet provided no explanation for the delay. ¹⁴⁶ The fact that he was prescribed Terazosin did not advance his case. The evidence showed that the medication was given on the basis of the Accused’s subjective complaints notwithstanding normal objective findings (supra at [36]; it was not prescribed because any clinical impediment had been identified.

70 Ultimately, the objective medical evidence coupled with the Accused’s contemporaneous conduct and omissions, demonstrated conclusively that he was medically able to provide a urine specimen at the material time. The purported urinary impediment was without medical foundation and was nothing more than a belated and piecemeal construct advanced by the Accused in an attempt to furnish a reasonable excuse within the meaning of s 31(2) of the MDA.

71 The Accused’s conduct over more than 14 hours evinced a sustained and wilful unwillingness to provide a sufficient urine sample.

72 Foremost, Sgt Iqbal’s evidence established that during the first procurement attempt, the Accused deliberately overturned the specimen bottle and emptied its contents into the toilet bowl, as well as urinated directly into the toilet bowl for three to six seconds (supra at [11]). Sgt Iqbal was not challenged on the latter, ¹⁴⁷ while his in-court demonstration of the manner in which the Accused had tilted and emptied the bottle was accepted as accurate. ¹⁴⁸ Significantly, the Accused himself accepted that the contents of the bottle had spilled directly into the toilet bowl and nowhere else. ¹⁴⁹

73 I rejected the Accused’s claim that the bottle had inadvertently slipped from his hands because he had suddenly felt dizzy, light-headed and momentarily blacked out (supra at [40(a)]). This assertion was not merely absent in Exhibit P13; it stood in direct contradiction to his express statement therein that he “was awake” and “aware of what was going on” – words he did not dispute (supra at [54(c)]). His account was further undermined by the absence of any contemporaneous complaint of dizziness, light-headedness or loss of consciousness to either Dr Arshad or Dr Yak, whom he consulted before and after the procurement attempt. ¹⁵⁰ In the circumstances, I found that the Accused’s actions during the first procurement attempt were controlled and purposeful, and wholly inconsistent with an accidental spill or transient loss of consciousness.

74 The Accused’s unwillingness to provide a specimen for testing was further demonstrated when he subsequently threw his partially filled bottle of urine into the rubbish bin. Under cross-examination, he accepted that he had done so because he did not want to provide a urine sample anymore. ¹⁵¹ Although he later sought to resile from this admission, it did not escape attention that he had advanced the very same explanation in his investigation statement, Exhibit P13 (supra at [54(i)]. This episode fortified the conclusion that he was intent on frustrating the procurement process and resisting all attempts to obtain a specimen.

75 The Accused’s conduct throughout the material period likewise revealed the lack of any genuine effort to provide a specimen. He ignored the second and third warnings administered by Inspector Khoo and SI Jufri respectively (supra at [15] and [17]). His claim in court that he was unaware that these warnings had been administered, did not cohere with Exhibit P13 in which he demonstrated clear cognisance of them and admitted that he did not append his signature on the pro formas because he “did not want to” (supra at [54(d)] and [54(e)]). At the third attempt at urine procurement, he also told SI Jufri not to disturb him (supra at [17]). Such responses were plainly incompatible with any bona fide intention to furnish a urine specimen and instead reflected a conscious decision to resist compliance.

76 Finally, the Accused’s indifference was evident in his approach to hydration. He did not consume all the water made available to him. He declined the water offered by Inspector Khoo and Inspector Norman when administering the second and fourth warnings respectively, and drank only “a bit” of the water given by SI Jufri prior to the third warning (supra at [15], [22] and [17]). Sgt Azil testified that there were occasions when the Accused would accept a cup of water and occasions when he would refuse. ¹⁵² The Accused also knew that he could request water, yet he made no such request – a fact borne out in his own statement (supra at [54(f)]). ¹⁵³ This pattern of conduct was inconsistent with a genuine effort to produce a urine specimen.

77 When these strands are considered collectively, they admit of only one reasonable inference: the Accused did not harbour any genuine or serious intention of providing a sufficient urine specimen for testing. His conduct was deliberate, calculated and sustained over an extended period. It could not be attributed to a medical impediment. Nothing, save for an obdurate refusal to comply, impeded the Accused’s ability to provide a urine specimen at the material time.

78 For completeness, while evidence was adduced that a preliminary urine test of the Accused’s inadequate urine specimen revealed the presence of amphetamine and opiates (supra at [25]), that fact did not feature in my analysis of the evidence or the finding of guilt. I remained mindful that the charge before me concerned the failure to provide a urine specimen, not the consumption of a controlled drug. My findings were therefore grounded exclusively in the evidence relating to the Accused’s conduct in relation to the procurement process.

79  Given that the Accused was not medically impeded from producing and excreting urine, I found that he had no reasonable excuse for failing to provide a sufficient specimen of his urine. The circumstances instead demonstrated that he had wilfully refused to provide a sample meeting the requirements prescribed under ss 31(1) and 31(4) of the MDA and the applicable Regulations governing urine testing. I thus convicted him of the charge.